Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Can Congress And The President Have Negative Poll Numbers?

Back on May 15, I noted a post by Alvaro Llosa about the situation France faces with new leadership in power. He made a comparison to Britain when the Thatcher government took control. The British discovered that it was a painful experience, making those changes, but that they had no desire to go back. The key bit (Llosa quoting Matthew Parris):

But even at the low point of Thatcher's first term ... you almost never heard anyone suggest a return to what had gone before. There was a sense, in 1979, that we had burnt a bridge behind us, and had wanted to.

Now if you would be so kind as to direct your attention to this Instapundit post, you'll note that Congress has reached an all time low confidence rating of 14%. Note also the Zogby result showing approval of the way immigration is being handled, by Congress and by the President, at 3% and 9% respectively.

Perhaps you'll be so kind as to share your thoughts about whether or not we might find ourselves burning some bridges of our own, and whether or not 2008 is too soon to start stockpiling matches.

I think that perhaps the US public is finally beginning to realize that we have a permanent political class, and, while they're not sure what to do about it, they know they don't like it.

This probably started in the late 1930s (the idea of elective office as a career choice, which led to increased govt activity which led to increased opportunity for lifetime employment by the govt which led to unions of govt employees who then donate to and vote for those pols who promise them the most) and accelerated in the late 1950s and picked up a full head of steam in the mid-1970s when pols realized they could use govt to get things they couldn't before.

Anyhow, we now have a 'ruling class' that didn't exist before. It's not exactly hereditary (but check the family relationships throughout govt) since it is relatively open to entry by talented, aggressive newbies.

What is obvious, is that this 'class' is waaaaaaay more interested in taking care of itself (in more than just terms of money, too) than in delivering what the public might rightfully want and deserve.

I suspect that prior to the rise of the web, this class could afford to pay relatively little attention to the public and believed that even if they did something the public wildly disliked the attention span of the public would mean that perhaps a few elected officials would lose office, but the 'class' would get what it wanted.

Remember, most longish time elected officials don't have any difficulty making a living if they lose an election. The 'class' takes care of its own.

Up until now, *most* incumbents were pretty safe for a variety of well-known reasons. (As I point out to my students, elected official *love* low turnout elections since they're easier to predict and control.) So, *most* incumbents (especially in Congress) can afford to vote against the public will regularly.

With this new 'Internets' and innertubes thingy, attention can be focused, retained, and refocused at election time, flip-flops and broken promises can be brought up repeatedly at low cost, and the disaffected can organize relatively easily.

Trent Lott is the poster boy for the outrage of this bunch of Privileged Asshats. Lucky for him he's old. He won't see most of the blowback, I suspect.

It is now obvious, especially with the "Center For American Progress", a Hillary for presidnet front group, coming out with their report advocating the abolishment of free speech on the radio, that the only way to restore America's freedoms, which are under a direct assult, is by violent revolution.Blood has to be spilt, there is no peaceful way now. Jefferson said,"The tree of liberty must be, from time to time, fertilazed with the blood of tyrants and patroits."Time is NOW. You are a fool to think otherwise.

This has nothing to do with anything, really, except anonymous comment at 1:23pm, June 21, 2007...sounds like a total idiot. What kind of people read your blog? Anyway, some bridges already have been burnt beyond recognition.

Well I will certainly grant that Anonymous 1:23, has a very intense outlook on the situation. I certainly don't think I'm at the blood-spilling stage just yet, and I suppose now might be as good a time as any to note that any bridge burning I might be doing is strictly metaphorical.